Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263702AbVBCR1M (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Feb 2005 12:27:12 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262453AbVBCR1L (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Feb 2005 12:27:11 -0500 Received: from THUNK.ORG ([69.25.196.29]:16315 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263672AbVBCR04 (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Feb 2005 12:26:56 -0500 Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 12:26:47 -0500 From: "Theodore Ts'o" To: Alan Cox Cc: Zan Lynx , Greg KH , Pavel Roskin , Patrick Mochel , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Please open sysfs symbols to proprietary modules Message-ID: <20050203172647.GA7883@thunk.org> Mail-Followup-To: Theodore Ts'o , Alan Cox , Zan Lynx , Greg KH , Pavel Roskin , Patrick Mochel , Linux Kernel Mailing List References: <20050202232909.GA14607@kroah.com> <20050203003010.GA15481@kroah.com> <1107406442.23059.16.camel@localhost> <1107431398.14847.139.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1107431398.14847.139.camel@localhost.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2004 Lines: 40 On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 03:12:59PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > On Iau, 2005-02-03 at 04:54, Zan Lynx wrote: > > So, what's the magic amount of redirection and abstraction that cleanses > > the GPLness, hmm? Who gets to wave the magic wand to say what > > interfaces are GPL-to-non-GPL and which aren't? > > The "derivative work" distinction in law, which can be quite complex > because it involves issues like intent. Other than the intentional clear > statement that the syscall interface is considered a barrier by the > authors there is no other statement. When a copy actually takes place is another matter of law, and whether an MacOS init which links in and patches MacOS to provide various enhancements to MacOS, would therefore make Init a derived work of MacOS is also a matter of law, and may very well vary based on your the legal jourisdiction that you might happen to be in. So it's probably not worth discussing it (or the analogous situation involving proprietary code dlopen'ing GPL'ed code, or proprietary modules which use symbols that get linked into a GPL'ed kernel) on the Linux Kernel mailing list. To people who want to write proprietary modules and use GPL'ed symbol exports --- take it up with your lawyer, and maybe someday we'll have a few test cases and a decision one way or another so that armchair lawyers don't have to keep discussing it. It probably is worth saying that the non-legal concerns: * lack of cooperation from developers * the need to keep up with changing interfaces * the fact that the driver can't be included in the mainline kernel * refusal by distributions to carry the driver are probably the more important things for companies that want to use a proprietary driver model to consider. - Ted - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/